Has Dr. A.K.G. Gujral Technical University, Kapurthala has taken permission for conducting MBA course through distance learning? - CIC: PIO to provide a consolidated reply in Hindi; FAA cautioned to be careful and pass speaking orders in future11 Mar, 2020
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether State University needs to take permission from UGC, AICTE & DEB for conducting courses through distance learning.
If yes, whether Dr. A.K.G. Gujral Technical University, Kapurthala has taken permission from the concerned authority for conducting MBA course through distance learning during 2008-2010.
2. Whether the recognition for conducting MBA course through distance learning has been terminated by DEB for Dr. A.K.G. Gujral Technical University, Kapurthala.
(2.2) If yes, provide reasons thereof.
(2.2.2) If no, what reason has been mentioned by the university in their application given for termination of the recognition.
3. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
No information has been provided to the appellant.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is aggrieved with the FAA’s order dated 12.10.2018 where it was mentioned that the CPIO had provided a reply on 04.10.2018. He pointed out that only a reply dated 27.02.2019 was received by him. He further pointed out that the reply was not provided in the vernacular language. He also pressed for a point wise reply. The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was provided on 27.02.2019 and the first appeal was disposed of on 12.10.2018. She further submitted that the degree(s)/diploma(s)/certificate(s) are verified/ validated by the issuing authority i.e concerned university/ institution only. DEB, UGC can provide the recognition status of the university which is as under:-
Punjab Technical University was accorded one time post facto approval up to 2007 and provisional recognition for 2007-08 by the erstwhile Distance Education Council for offering programmes through distance mode, which were approved by the statutory bodies of the University. The professional/technical courses were to be offered as per norms of the apex regulatory bodies and with their approval, if required. The provisional recognition accorded to the PTU was extended for one more year. Further, the university was accorded continuation of Institutional Recognition from 2009-10 to 2011-12.
The university has not been given recognition to offer programmes through distance mode for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15 due to violation of territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, UGC has accorded programme wise recognition to offer programmes through distance mode during the academic session 2015- 16, which was further continued for 2016-17 & 2017-18. The status of the university is already displayed at UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb.
On a query by the Commission, the concerned CPIO, Smt. Smita Bidhani submitted that due to work pressure and oversight and transfers that took place at that time the reply could not be provided on time. Further, she was unable to provide any documentary proof to substantiate that a reply was provided on 04.10.2018.
Based on a perusal of the record, the appellant’s contention was found to be correct. The then FAA is cautioned to be careful and pass speaking orders in future. In so far as appellant’s request for a point wise reply is concerned, the Commission finds the reply dated 12.02.2020 in consolidated form and directs the CPIO to provide the reply in Hindi to facilitate the appellant in understanding the same.
In view of the above observations, the CPIO shall provide a consolidated reply in Hindi l to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Nitin Kumar v. University Grants Commission in Decision no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/631934/02883, Date of Decision : 13/02/2020